Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[Biff_Poindexter]

Oh by the way -- for all this parsing of words over slavery


Please don't compare Obamacare or making a gay cake to slavery again...

 

[kaz]

Oh by the way -- are you folks claiming that Virginia abolished slavery before the Civil War? really?

Are you claiming that anybody actually said that? Really?

Agreed, obviously they didn't. Maybe they meant the part of Virginia that became West Virginia?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833. If there had been no Rwala oil fields in Kuwait, there would have been no Persian Gulf War in 1991, but that does not mean that the Gulf War was "fought over oil."

One must distinguish between a direct cause and an indirect cause. The South fought because it was invaded. If there had been no federal invasion, there would have been no war. The South did not want to take over the federal government--it just wanted to leave the federal government.

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The people who praise nuance are the same ignoring it here.

 

[kaz]

Oh by the way -- for all this parsing of words over slavery


Please don't compare Obamacare or making a gay cake to slavery again...

I only eat pure, American, heterosexual cakes

 

[koshergrl]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

Those who wanted to destroy our constitution for the sake of seizing the resources of the South used *slavery* in the same way the same people use *racism* today.

In order to rip the constitution and afford the feds more control than it allows them, there has to be a *cause* that will distract people from the fact that the actions being taken are in fact unconstitutional. You fabricate horror so that nobody notices the horrors you visit upon them yourself.

 

[g5000]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

If it was over slavery, why did Lincoln offer to enshrine slavery in the Constitution and why did the South turn him down when he did?

The South rejected the Corwin amendment because it banned the expansion of slavery in new territories or states. Which meant the inevitable minority position of the slave states in Congress forever.

So..yeah. The war was about slavery.

With the Constitutional amendment, it wouldn't have mattered

It would have mattered tremendously. The Corwin amendment, which would have amended the Constitution, would only allow slavery where it currently existed. It banned slavery from expanding into new territories or states. That would actually have made things worse than they already were for the slave states, since up to that point the new states were allowed to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free. And a previous compromise allowed one new slave state for every new free state. The Corwin amendment would put a stop to that.

The Corwin amendment was therefore a really bad deal for the slave states, and meant that they would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, and slavery would be abolished from the entire union by the eventual majority.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh by the way -- for all this parsing of words over slavery


Please don't compare Obamacare or making a gay cake to slavery again...

I agree.

And, a war over slavery would have been justified, in my opinion.

Too bad it was the justification until 2 years into it.

 

[kaz]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

If it was over slavery, why did Lincoln offer to enshrine slavery in the Constitution and why did the South turn him down when he did?

The South rejected the Corwin amendment because it banned the expansion of slavery in new territories or states. Which meant the inevitable minority position of the slave states in Congress forever.

So..yeah. The war was about slavery.

With the Constitutional amendment, it wouldn't have mattered

It would have mattered. The Corwin amendment, which would have amended the Constitution, would only allow slavery where it currently existed. It banned slavery from expanding into new territories or states. That would actually have made things worse than they already were for the slave states, since up to that point the new states were allowed to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free.

The Corwin amendment was therefore a really bad deal for the slave states, and meant that they would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, and slavery would be abolished from the entire union by the eventual majority.

You realize it would have taken 3/4 of the States to undo a Constitutional Amendment, right?

 

[TheDude]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

LOL, low on material huh?

 

[kaz]

Oh by the way -- for all this parsing of words over slavery


Please don't compare Obamacare or making a gay cake to slavery again...

I agree.

And, a war over slavery would have been justified, in my opinion.

Too bad it was the justification until 2 years into it.

Yes, that's what the dumb asses who say the war was over slavery always like to omit.

The motto of the North was "Save the Union." Pretty damned clear

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

 

[miketx]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

Keep lying lib, it's what you do. States rights was the main cause.

 

[francoHFW]

Oh by the way -- for all this parsing of words over slavery


Please don't compare Obamacare or making a gay cake to slavery again...

I only eat pure, American, heterosexual cakes

No gays baking cakes now LOL?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Yes, that's what the dumb asses who say the war was over slavery always like to omit.

The motto of the North was "Save the Union." Pretty damned clear

So republicans didn't really care about slaves either? got it.

So when Republicans say we are the party of Lincoln as a way to show how they are on the side of black folks -- that's all bullshit?

 

[kaz]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

Lincoln wanted blacks to go back to Africa. The vast majority of Northerners considered blacks inferior. The motto of the north was "Save the union" and as Bootney accurately pointed out the whole slavery thing came up 2 years into the war.

No amount of facts are going to phase you, are they?

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's what the dumb asses who say the war was over slavery always like to omit.

The motto of the North was "Save the Union." Pretty damned clear

So republicans didn't really care about slaves either? got it.

So when Republicans say we are the party of Lincoln as a way to show how they are on the side of black folks -- that's all bullshit?

Ask a Republican, I don't really care. Republicans suck almost as much as you do

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Keep lying lib, it's what you do. States rights was the main cause.

Louisiana says different:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Were they lying too? After all, they were democrats....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It would have mattered. The Corwin amendment, which would have amended the Constitution, would only allow slavery where it currently existed. It banned slavery from expanding into new territories or states. That would actually have made things worse than they already were for the slave states, since up to that point the new states were allowed to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free.

The Corwin amendment was therefore a really bad deal for the slave states, and meant that they would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, and slavery would be abolished from the entire union by the eventual majority.

Which was all the slave-owning assholes wanted. They wanted it to never be taken away.

As a work-around, they wanted an equal number of slave states as expansion continued so they could prevent another amendment abolishing it later down the road.

I am not defending those fuckers for slavery or for it being the reason they seceded.

I am just making sure that nobody gets undue praise. The Civil War seriously changed the relationship between State and Union, or at least clarified it.

no slavery = no war is only true in that particular circumstance.

no slavery = no secession ever?

Way too presumptuous and unlikely in my opinion.

 

[g5000]

The South rejected the Corwin amendment because it banned the expansion of slavery in new territories or states.

Reason for war -- secession

reason for secession - slavery

Can we at least agree on that?

The South seceded to preserve slavery. The election of Lincoln was perceived as the election of an abolitionist. That's how Lincoln was portrayed in the South.

Lincoln actually believed that if slavery was necessary to keep the Union together, then so be it. If the abolition of slavery was necessary, then so be it. The preservation of the Union was paramount.

But in his heart, Lincoln despised slavery.

No matter how you spin it, though, the war was fought over slavery. I don't know why people resist that idea so vehemently. After all, the very same people spend a lot of time telling us Confederates were Democrats!

Positively schizophrenic. Like the Union itself.

 

[cnm]

Reason for war -- secession

reason for secession - slavery

Can we at least agree on that?

How about

Reason for war - theft of Federal property

Reason for theft of Federal property - Cracker pride